Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

climategateFollow

#527 Dec 15 2009 at 9:04 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,158 posts
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
jive cool dude.


WTF! What fucking millenium are you from again?

Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
You seem honestly to not know what you want concerning this issue. If you actually like the notion of personal and spontaneous action on the part of yourself and others like you, then you need to not merely consume less, but get on with the murdering of people who consume too much.



I know exactly what I want, thanks.

I want people to stop pretending that they can continue using the planets resources as though they are infinate. Preferably at the same time as stopping voicing concerned platitudes about 'how were all going to die from Global Warming' (or whatever we're calling it this week) to each other whilst scarfing down their 11th burger of the week, and 'wtf is the Govt doing about it anyway', bollox.

I have no faith whatsoever in the government or BigBusiness doing anything much positive in that direction, so I figure its up to me to do what I can.

I have no interest in forcing people to do anything. I can only offer my own behaviour as an example.

Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
You can't glorify grassroots and personal action to solve a social issue. It's just ridiculous to think that you can make changes for many through the actions of one unless do in fact endorse some sort of fascism.


The list of social issues that have been affected and/or resolved by grassroots movements and the actions of the few, or even single individuals is immensly long. You may have hear of Ghandi for example.


In the meantime, you go on waiting for the Government or someone to sort it all out for you whilst you continue shopping or whatever you do in your free time.And like I said before. Good luck with that...And I'll continue doing my permaculture, vegetarian, minimal consumption thing that I like to do.







____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#528 Dec 15 2009 at 9:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Except it's not moronic. I mean, you're saying that it is and insisting really hard that you're right but that's not the same thing.


I say it is. You say it isn't. Tell me again how this revelation makes your position right and mine wrong?


Quote:
No, I'm taking the most outspoken of the GOP, the guy who the GOP pretty much put in charge of debunking ACC with his committee assignments, a guy whose work you personally cited as evidence that ACC was "moronic" and talking about how his work was terribly flawed but his ties to the industries which benefit most from "It's moronic!" are deep and oh so very lucrative for him.


Which, aside from you simply saying he's wrong, doesn't actually make him wrong. You get how this still revolves around you basically insisting "I'm right!" over and over...? Circular argument is circular.

Quote:
Quote:
Does the politician oppose Global Warming proposals because he's being supported by the oil companies?

Yes. Absolutely. Looking at the records of donations would leave absolutely no doubt in any sane person's mind. Not "oh, it's just a little of both" but a whole fucking giant pile of this. These people are paid off... there's really no question about it.


Are you arguing that the oil industry would not wish to provide campaign funding for politicians who oppose regulation which would cost them money? Why do you assume it only works one way?

This would just be an amusing little quirk on your part except that we're talking about something which is a base component of conservative political philosophy. Conservatives believe in small government. Republicans are going to tend to oppose unnecessary regulation and taxation of private industry by default. You're insisting that the only reason Inhofe opposes Global Warming proposals is because he's receiving campaign funding from oil and energy companies?

Do you even hear yourself? You're basically arguing, not just that an opposing political ideology is wrong, but that it just doesn't even exist. Nope. None of us actually believe that smaller government really is better for us all, despite the long and arduous arguments we make for this, or the long historical context this idea has. Nope. We just pretend we do so that we can all bask in the money we get from the evil oil companies in return for helping them out.

Really? This is what you believe? You can't even acknowledge that some people just plain disagree with you on something and that their reasons for doing so are just as legitimate and valid as your own reasons for holding your position? Gee Joph. I'd be offended, but that seems to be par for the course these days...


You sound like Smash when he goes off on one of his "Everyone who votes Republican is either evil, or being duped by evil". I had assumed your own political ideology wasn't quite so idiotic, but you're starting to make me wonder...


Quote:
Quote:
Why are you surprised?

I'm not surprised at all. Oh, believe me when I say I'm not surprised at how completely and totally you've bought into the party line. Surprise would require me to think you were showing some sort of independent thought instead off knee-jerk "So what if he took almost a million dollars of energy industry month in the last four years! He's only saying it because he truly believes it!"


And yet, none of that makes his position wrong. Does it?

It's funny how your position changes based on whether you personally agree with the issue at hand. Circular thinking Joph. How much money has Al Gore made as a result of his political actions in this area? Yet, while I might make some amusing comment towards self interest on his part, I would never argue that Global Warming didn't exist purely because Al Gore is making money off of it.


Something is true or false regardless of who says it and regardless of who stands to gain or lose by it. When will you get this? I've been saying this to you for years, but you still insist on judging things, not based on what they actually are, but on every other thing surrounding the issue of that thing. It's about which party agrees or disagrees, or which professions, or which lobbyists, or which industries, or which musicians, or comedians, or politicians. Joph. It's not about any of those things.


When will you grasp this?


Quote:
No, it has to be the money because the science would NEVER say something that goes against what the GOP told me to believe!", I'd have the money in my pocket to single handedly end ACC myself.


The science doesn't say it Joph. Are you seriously suggesting I hold this position because a political party told me to? That may be how you pick your positions, but it's not how I do it. Maybe I'm a member of the GOP because they tend to arrive at similar conclusions as me. One among them is that when someone tosses out ridiculous predictions based on questionable science and insists that we spend trillions of dollars dealing with this invented problem, that I'm going to say "No".


Some of us take sane and rational positions on things. We don't jump to wild conclusions because someone tells us we should. We tend to believe that if it aint broke, don't fix it, and we have a healthy skepticism towards big government solutions to any problem, let alone one as poorly substantiated as this one. We call ourselves conservatives Joph. And we pick positions on things like Global warming, not because someone told us to, but because it's in our nature to do so.


It's just interesting that you seem to have to believe that conservative positions can't be derived naturally. It's strange, don't you think? Almost as strange as the guy running around screaming the modern equivalent of "the sky is falling" insisting that there's something wrong with the guy who isn't panicking and running around like a chicken with his head chopped off.

Quote:
that's not even just ACC, either. Stem cell research, oil drilling, abstinence education... any time your ideological beliefs are in contradiction with what's being presented, it's "No, it's REALLY all about the money!"


You're the one who's taking that position Joph. Not me. I simply said that it's the nature of government to expand its power if it can and that it's important for us citizens to realize this and act to prevent it where possible.

You're the one who started insisting that the entire argument against ACC is wrong because Inhofe receives financial support from the oil industry...


Quote:
You'll look at the actual issue.... hehehehe....


I have been, Joph. I've argued every single scientific point in the issue. I did not resort to name calling, nor insisting that the other guy was wrong because he was agreeing with other people who were wrong because they were funded by yet other people who were wrong. As strange as it seems, that's essentially been your argument. You gave up when you couldn't actually show any science establishing the connection between anthropogenic CO2 levels and temperature increase over time, and resorted to attacking the people instead of the argument.


That's usually an indication that you have lost btw.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#529 Dec 15 2009 at 9:22 PM Rating: Good
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
I agree with aspects of what you say, Paulsol. I think people need to take personal responsibility. Now, I know I should probably go totally vegetarian but I've at least cut down to eating meat twice a month. I use public transportation. I try to limit the fuel I use to heat my apartment. I reuse things. I've composted when I could. I think it makes a difference but I also think that the problem of global pollution really is something that requires government intervention and government input, simply because multinational corporations--who are the biggest polluters, are simply to powerful for individuals to combat. And I think that is one of the role of governments--though our government has certainly lost its way.
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#530 Dec 15 2009 at 9:31 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
I have no faith whatsoever in the government or BigBusiness doing anything much positive in that direction, so I figure its up to me to do what I can.


You don't have to have faith in them, in fact you probably shouldn't, but that doesn't excuse you from your obligation to attempt to change governmental policy through your grassroots sh*t. You can't just ignore the most obvious manifestation of social responsibility if you want socially pervasive change; you need to change what you have now into something that is not evil and corrupt, into something that you can trust.

Quote:
And I'll continue doing my permaculture, vegetarian, minimal consumption thing that I like to do. nothing at all


Smiley: nod

Seriously. You do nothing at all aside from relieve your consciounce allowing you to sleep better. And again, you seem to have no idea what you want. You want to change things, but you don't want to use violence or force, or even coercion. Sorry dude, but the likelihood of it happening is too small to be worth mentioning.

Edited, Dec 15th 2009 10:37pm by Pensive
#531 Dec 15 2009 at 9:38 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Quote:
And if their interest is to make as much money as possible, one could argue that reducing the taxes and regulation on them would be something pretty high on their wish list. Do you think the oil industry wants to spend money to get government to not tax them as much? Or do you think they would prefer to just not get taxed as much in the first place?


I'd like to pay zero dollars in taxes but yet reap the rewards of a structure that has tax supported elements.

Oh wait, I, as well as a large chunk of corporations, already do.

At least one fourth of corporations with assets >250M did not pay taxes from 98-05. Roughly 1.1T in revenue that got shunted to no-tax land. And those are the most likely candidates to receive handouts too.

So, do you think that this is a working system?
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#532 Dec 15 2009 at 9:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Which, aside from you simply saying he's wrong, doesn't actually make him wrong.

No, actually I tore apart his little press release pretty much point by point back when you first linked to it and say "Haha! Look at THIS!"

That was the time when it was shown that he's wrong. This is just me restating the fact. So I can safely skip every other part where you say "That doesn't mean he's wrong!" unless you can show me where he was right.

Quote:
Are you arguing that the oil industry would not wish to provide campaign funding for politicians who oppose regulation which would cost them money? Why do you assume it only works one way?

Because, if Inhofe actually had a credible reason (besides money) for opposing it, his little press release wouldn't have been such a joke made up of half-truths and straight out lies Smiley: smile

So all that stuff where you cry about government? All those paragraphs of you crying about "real conservative values"? It was nice and all but... nah. That doesn't convince me that Inhofe has a reason besides cash for preaching what he does. Nor for the GOP to be sure to give him a platform for his message.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#533 Dec 15 2009 at 9:40 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Quote:
I have no interest in forcing people to do anything. I can only offer my own behavior as an example.


Sounds to me like you just don't care enough then, past giving meaningless token support.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#534 Dec 15 2009 at 10:06 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Which, aside from you simply saying he's wrong, doesn't actually make him wrong.

No, actually I tore apart his little press release pretty much point by point back when you first linked to it and say "Haha! Look at THIS!"


Given that I don't even remember this, you'll have to forgive me Joph.

I'll go out on a limb and guess that your "tearing him apart" still basically consisted of you not agreeing with him, so therefore he's wrong, so therefor his bold claims are just that much more amusing to you or something...

Quote:
That was the time when it was shown that he's wrong.


Factually wrong? Or is this a "he said something I disagree with" wrong?


Quote:
This is just me restating the fact. So I can safely skip every other part where you say "That doesn't mean he's wrong!" unless you can show me where he was right.


Since I don't know what press release you're referring to, I can't comment Joph. The guy has written a lot of things and made a lot of statements over the years. And he's been opposing the whole global warming nuttiness since well before 2005...


Here's the thing Joph. What is he's right? What if all the people saying that CO2 emissions will increase the temperature of the planet to dangerous levels are wrong? And the end of the day, that's the one and only thing that matters here, right?

What if you are wrong? Have you even even considered this?


Quote:
So all that stuff where you cry about government? All those paragraphs of you crying about "real conservative values"? It was nice and all but... nah. That doesn't convince me that Inhofe has a reason besides cash for preaching what he does. Nor for the GOP to be sure to give him a platform for his message.



I already said I don't know specifically what his reason is. But it doesn't matter, does it? It has zero bearing on whether the issue at hand is right or wrong. It is just as likely that he's funded by the oil folks because he believes in a course of action which benefits them, as that he takes those positions because he's being funded by them. And we can sit here and guess all day long which it might be, but it really doesn't matter.


Either ACC will happen and is as bad as the predictors claim. Or it isn't. And no amount of you pointing out who's supporting whom affects that truth one bit. We can invent new people and pretend that they support or oppose any given position, and then invent new industries which pay them to do this. We can speculate all day long about all the possible ways in which money might influence someone's decisions regarding this issue. But none of that affects the actual truth, does it?


And guess what? The facts we have simply don't support the kind of draconian moves that are being recommended. They just don't. And if you'd get off your ideological high-horse for a moment, you'd realize it. The damage done by the proposals are nearly as bad (possibly worse) than the worst case estimates of damage from ACC. Even the full 2 Degree change wont cause as much total decrease in economic output and the ability for the world to feed it's people as the damage from the "cure". And if they're wrong? We've deliberately hurt ourselves for absolutely no reason...


The policies are what is moronic Joph. Always have been. Some of us have seen this from the start.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#535 Dec 15 2009 at 10:13 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
paulsol wrote:
The list of social issues that have been affected and/or resolved by grassroots movements and the actions of the few, or even single individuals is immensly long. You may have hear of Ghandi for example.

That is the exact opposite of what you are advocating. You want people to individualistically do their own shiz and hopefully everyone will happen to make the right choice on their own. That is personal responsibility. Ghandi organized people to pressure the governing body for change. That is exactly what I'm suggesting.
paulsol wrote:
In the meantime, you go on waiting for the Government or someone to sort it all out for you whilst you continue shopping or whatever you do in your free time.And like I said before. Good luck with that...And I'll continue doing my permaculture, vegetarian, minimal consumption thing that I like to do.

Yes, the people who aren't dumb will work together towards policies that seek to reduce national pollution in the scope of tenths while you continue to be completely ineffective at making a difference.

Edited, Dec 15th 2009 10:18pm by Allegory
#536 Dec 15 2009 at 10:15 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Quote:
The policies are what is moronic Joph. Always have been. Some of us have seen this from the start.


Lets go through which policies you are calling out. Unless it's all of them.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#537 Dec 15 2009 at 10:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Which, aside from you simply saying he's wrong, doesn't actually make him wrong.
No, actually I tore apart his little press release pretty much point by point back when you first linked to it and say "Haha! Look at THIS!"
Given that I don't even remember this, you'll have to forgive me Joph.

I'll go out on a limb and guess that your "tearing him apart" still basically consisted of you not agreeing with him, so therefore he's wrong, so therefor his bold claims are just that much more amusing to you or something...

Yeah, you'd be wrong on that. Start here and read on down. Unfortunately, the original article you link to is unavailable but I'm sure you can follow along as I spend a couple posts taking it apart. Re-reading how you backpedaled from it was pretty funny though so thanks for making me look it up again. Those were good times Smiley: laugh

Edit: Good news! The press release Inhofe put out claiming that the NAS had debunked and rejected Mann's graph is still accessible!

This actually ties into something else I was typing before this. Backing up just a bit...
Quote:
You gave up when you couldn't actually show any science establishing the connection between anthropogenic CO2 levels and temperature increase over time

Nah, I've spent thread after thread citing studies and linking to evidence. You sit there and say "They said likely! That means they're not sure!" and demanding whatever your version is of 100% solid evidence. Which is pretty funny considering that you lamely (and inaccurately) tried to throw around Occam's Razor in this thread, all the while failing to present any sort of evidence or studies showing (oohh... maybe they'll show it 100%!) alternate reasons why this past decade has been the warmest on record. Oh, I know you can throw around a bunch of unsupported reasons. I mean, it takes nothing to say "it's just a cycle!" or "Sunspots!" or whatever the alternate raison du jour is. But nothing to indicate that this is actually true.

Here, go find yourself a copy of "Detecting and Attributing External Influences on the Climate System" from the 2005 Journal of Climate. Here's the first quote from there, and we can go into the rest of it after you've read the article.
Journal of Climate wrote:
Any discussion on the methodology that is used for detection and attribution should begin with an understanding of these terms. The definitions we use are those given by Mitchell et al. (2001) in the TAR (IPCC 2001). Quoting from that report, “Detection is the process of demonstrating that an observed change is significantly different (in a statistical sense) than can be explained by natural internal variability” where natural internal variability is the chaotic variation of the climate system that occurs in the absence of anomalous external forcing. Detection does not immediately imply attribution of the cause of the detected change. As noted in the SAR (IPCC 1996) and the TAR unequivocal attribution would require controlled experimentation with our climate system. That, of course, is not possible, and thus from a practical perspective, attribution of anthropogenic climate change is understood to mean (a) detection as defined above, (b) demonstration that the detected change is consistent with a combination of external forcing including anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere and natural internal variability, and (c) that it is “not consistent with alternative, physically-plausible explanations of recent climate change that exclude important elements of the given combination of forcings”

Do you understand what was just said? Are you going to foolishly demand some sort of ironclad incontrovertible evidence that can only be obtained by having a collection of planet Earths to experiment with (real ones since God forbid they use computerized models)? I need to know that you can wrap your mind around this before it's even worth continuing.

Edited, Dec 15th 2009 10:30pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#538 Dec 15 2009 at 10:29 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Quote:
Start here and read on down.


That was a good thread.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#539 Dec 15 2009 at 10:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:
Start here and read on down.
That was a good thread.

Wasn't it, though? It's good to go back and review these things sometimes. If nothing else, it explains why I'm less likely to bother getting too much into it today.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#540 Dec 15 2009 at 10:48 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
#541 Dec 15 2009 at 11:03 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
Annabella of Future Fabulous! wrote:
I agree with aspects of what you say, Paulsol. I think people need to take personal responsibility. Now, I know I should probably go totally vegetarian but I've at least cut down to eating meat twice a month. I use public transportation. I try to limit the fuel I use to heat my apartment. I reuse things. I've composted when I could. I think it makes a difference but I also think that the problem of global pollution really is something that requires government intervention and government input, simply because multinational corporations--who are the biggest polluters, are simply to powerful for individuals to combat. And I think that is one of the role of governments--though our government has certainly lost its way.


You're on the right track for sure. But you get derailed at the "I also think that the problem of global pollution really is something that requires government intervention" bit.

See, the govt(s) have very little influence over the multinationals. Its the mn's who are in charge. They are the ones who need to be influenced, need to be persuaded that their actions are unacceptable to the customer.

They are influenced by their profits and only their profits. If their margins take a hit, they spend masses of man-hours figuring out why, and then doing something about it. the reason the Multinationals are the biggest polluters is because we not only allow them to be, but we actively encourage them to be.

For example.

Every time I buy something I need, I remove the packaging IN THE SHOP. I give it back to the man in the shop who looks at me funny but has no choice but to take it. Imagine if you would if EVERYONE unwrapped the packaging from everything they bought, from their minor purchases to their new 50" TV's and left it for the retailer to dispose of. How long do you think it would be before the retailers started demanding less packaging from the manufacturer?? Leading to less overall packaging, less garbage, less landfill.


This is what I'm talking about. Individual actions that, when taken up en mass become a movement for change. A movement that the multi-nationals have no choice but to take notice of.

Now you as an individual try to get your government to regulate the amount of packaging of fridges and TV's from companies that aren't even in located in your country, in an attempt to try and limit the amount of landfill your community has to deal with. see how far you get with that in the next 10 years. the govenrment has got better things to do (or it should have) than spend its time worrying about bubble-wrap and cardboard.

Its not about being a hermit living on an acre of land, eating potatoes from your subsistence farming efforts, and walking everywhere whilst wearing handspun clothes. Its about using your individual intelligence to come up with ideas that bring about a change in everyones behaviour.

Making any sense at all?
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#542 Dec 15 2009 at 11:13 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Quote:
Every time I buy something I need, I remove the packaging IN THE SHOP. I give it back to the man in the shop who looks at me funny but has no choice but to take it. Imagine if you would if EVERYONE unwrapped the packaging from everything they bought, from their minor purchases to their new 50" TV's and left it for the retailer to dispose of. How long do you think it would be before the retailers started demanding less packaging from the manufacturer?? Leading to less overall packaging, less garbage, less landfill.


Sorry, I want enough packaging so my 50" TV doesn't break during shipping and setup. After it's served it's purpose, I take no issue with recycling those components so they can be used again. You, apparently would rather toss your sh*t in a store, which has virtually zero effect on their bottom line, and helps "the environment" far less than my approach.

IE. Be less retarded?

Also, why do you think that you could get EVERYONE!11! to subscribe to your more effort for less positive outcome strategy? Or even a sizable minority group? This is the part that most boggles the mind. Is there any logical or even illogical but coherent pathway that would take you from here to there?

It's like your strategy is:

1. Assorted 'Eco-friendly" shenanigans
2. Your ideas are spread through some sort of grassroots viral infection
3. ???
4a. noProfit!!!
4b. Corporations lose profit and thus become compassionate stewards of the environment.
5. Banging all the PETA chicks.(NSFW)

Edited, Dec 16th 2009 12:26am by Timelordwho
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#543 Dec 15 2009 at 11:17 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,158 posts
Timelordwho wrote:


I take no issue with recycling those components so they can be used again.

IE. Be less retarded?


Pray tell do, oh clever cnut, how exactly you personally 'recycle' a cubic metre of expanded polystyrene , bubble-wrap, cardboard and **** knows what else so that it gets 'used again'?
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#544 Dec 15 2009 at 11:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Quote:
Pray tell do, oh clever cnut, how exactly you personally 'recycle' a cubic metre of expanded polystyrene , bubble-wrap, cardboard and @#%^ knows what else so that it gets 'used again'?


Heat, chemicals and/or biotics.

Just like other recycling methods.

-----------

Edit:

Also, amazingly enough, polystyrene is recyled in Germany, unlike most places, because the is, get this, a LAW, that forces manufacturers to take care of the packaging they include with their stuff. Oddly enough, they end up with that same end goal you ascribed which was to use less 'stuff' overall for packaging. Shocking really.

Edited, Dec 16th 2009 12:33am by Timelordwho
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#545 Dec 16 2009 at 12:11 AM Rating: Decent
****
4,158 posts
Timelordwho wrote:


Heat, chemicals and/or biotics.


I thought this thread was about reducing carbon footprints? Using heat and chemicals to 'recycle' something that is manufactured using heat and (carbon based) chemicals doesn't sound like a very good way of achieving a smaller carbon footpint to me.



Edited, Dec 16th 2009 6:16am by paulsol
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#546 Dec 16 2009 at 12:52 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
paulsol wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:


Heat, chemicals and/or biotics.


I thought this thread was about reducing carbon footprints? Using heat and chemicals to 'recycle' something that is manufactured using heat and (carbon based) chemicals doesn't sound like a very good way of achieving a smaller carbon footpint to me.



Edited, Dec 16th 2009 6:16am by paulsol


Because you can generate the energy necessary without increasing you carbon footprint? Yet another reason whole-cloth approaches to problems are much more effective than guerrilla environmentalism. Instituting structural manufacturing responsibility doesn't just manage the resource costs but also the energy costs.

Let me weave you a story:

Option A: Manufacturing Companyâ„¢ produces a TV and packaging each with their own associated wastes. Due to Enviro-regulation XYZ, Manufacturing Companyâ„¢ must deal with it's byproducts. In interests of time I'll only go through the packaging byproducts since they are the one you seem most concerned with. MCâ„¢ collects, and recycles said packaging materials. They get the energy to do so for the grid. The power providers that make up the grid have a similar regulatory substructure, and thus must process their byproducts. Coal company must eliminate/mitigate it's impact etc. Thus the goods/services end up being priced somewhat higher, because of the obvious additional costs. However those subsystems will be reduced in cost over time due to development, scalability etc.

Option B: Manufacturing Companyâ„¢ producing a TV and it's packaging, and Paulso getting huffy that they be disrespectan tha environment, so he hurls the packing peanuts onto the ground and stamps on them, raging against the system that allows such awful things to occur.

All while not trying to change the obviously faulty system.

---------------------

The point here behind regulation isn't to make Evil Oil Co. unprofitable, but so there is an more even playing field amongst the industries. Of course something like coal has less overhead than Solar if you don't make it subsume the responsibility for it's products as well as it's by products. It's like a trade system which takes "Caveat Emptor" as it's only law.

You expect a company to be responsible for it's product, right? Basic Liabilities law here, nothing special. Consumer buys product, product hurts consumer because of flaw, company gets sued. It's just taking that same approach to byproducts that are less sold, but more "given" away to more or less unwilling participants.

If after taking care of those aspects they are still more economically viable than Solar Co., more power to them. Or to us from them.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#547 Dec 16 2009 at 12:56 AM Rating: Good
In the case of cardboard, you mulch it and then re-press it as *cough* "new" cardboard.
#548 Dec 16 2009 at 1:06 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
MDenham wrote:
In the case of cardboard, you mulch it and then re-press it as *cough* "new" cardboard.


Isn't it funny that if Manufacturing Companyâ„¢ were liable for the whole process of the materials it uses, they may opt to go with the cardboard packing route rather than a somewhat cheaper to make, but difficult to recycle option?
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#549 Dec 16 2009 at 1:55 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Which, aside from you simply saying he's wrong, doesn't actually make him wrong.
No, actually I tore apart his little press release pretty much point by point back when you first linked to it and say "Haha! Look at THIS!"
Given that I don't even remember this, you'll have to forgive me Joph.

I'll go out on a limb and guess that your "tearing him apart" still basically consisted of you not agreeing with him, so therefore he's wrong, so therefor his bold claims are just that much more amusing to you or something...

Yeah, you'd be wrong on that. Start here and read on down. Unfortunately, the original article you link to is unavailable but I'm sure you can follow along as I spend a couple posts taking it apart. Re-reading how you backpedaled from it was pretty funny though so thanks for making me look it up again. Those were good times Smiley: laugh

Wait wait wait...it looks like we've had this discussion here before?!?

We might just as well give up this ten-page monstrosity and just go re-read that one a few times.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#550 Dec 16 2009 at 2:59 AM Rating: Decent
****
4,158 posts
In your story, is your manufacturing company in the US or China?

If its in China ( 'cos most stuff you buy these days comes from China) how are you getting the packaging back to them so they can 'deal' with it? And the power companies? coal companies? Have you ever been to China? Or anywhere that actually makes that stuff you buy in your stores?

Obviously fucking not. because if you had, you would know that the reason they can make an electric power tool for $10 and sell it on the other side of the world at a profit is because they have NO regulatory standards. Or labour protection. Or fair wages. Or pollution control. And the people making them for you have no health insurance. Or pensions. And they are probably 10 years old and have no future either.

Christ on a bike. Your as thick as fuck.


Quote:

Option B: Manufacturing Companyâ„¢ producing a TV and it's packaging, and Paulso getting huffy that they be disrespectan tha environment, so he hurls the packing peanuts onto the ground and stamps on them, raging against the system that allows such awful things to occur.


That musta sounded quite funny in your head when you typed it out. Shame it has nothing to do with what i was talking about.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#551 Dec 16 2009 at 3:08 AM Rating: Decent
Keeper of the Shroud
*****
13,632 posts
The thing that really bothers me about this entire debate is that the arguing over whether or not Global Warming or Climate Change, or whatever you want to call it, is really is happening, is just masking the biggest and most important issue. That issue being that eventually we are going to run out of oil.

Our entire world economy revolves around having a steady supply of the stuff. Some scientists are saying that we've already reached the production peak, some are arguing that we still have until 2030 before we reach the peak. The scary thing is, they are only arguing over twenty years. Once that happens it's just fast and scary fall into last century, but not before the wars.

We desperately need to develop alternative energy not because emissions from burning oil may be harmful, but because if we don't it will very likely lead to nothing less than worldwide economic catastrophe.


Edited, Dec 16th 2009 4:44am by Turin
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 234 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (234)